You must be able to redraw the situation from the facts found alone.
Anyway, onto this weeks episode: From Boris Kuzminov's Photoalbum on Facebook:
 |
| (click on picture to see the animation) |
Please write down Facts Found, Conclusion and Decision as if you were one of the members that hears Yellow's (valid) protest after the race.
Good luck!
UPDATE 14/02/2011
Like the first post in this series, I'll be waiting to publish the comments until next issue. That way everybody can do this without breaking rule 41, okay? That also gives me the opportunity to come up with some remarks on your entries.
Under fleet racing rules,
ReplyDeleteYellow and Blue approach a mark to be left to port, Yellow on starboard tack one boatlength above layline, Blue on port tack one boatlength below layline, each near close-hauled.
Blue needs to tack around the mark in order to sail toward the next mark of the course.
Blue tacks onto starboard one boatlength from the mark.
On completion of the tack Blue is overlapped one-half length leeward of Yellow, slightly ahead.
During and after the tack Yellow holds course with no need to avoid.
Both boats leave the mark to port, and sail on with continuous overlap.
More than 2-lengths beyond the mark, Blue luffs above close hauled.
While still within the 4-length zone, Yellow luffs in response, hails protest and shows a red flag.
Blue tacked within the zone and caused Yellow to sail above close hauled to avoid Blue.
Rule 18 applied when Yellow luffed, because Yellow was inside the zone of a mark that Yellow and Blue were required to leave to port.
Blue broke rule 18.3(a)
Penalize Blue.
The Zone was established as four boatlengths.
ReplyDeleteOn a beat to windward Blue and Yellow, on opposite tacks, were approaching a mark that both boats were to leave to port.
The course to the next mark was slightly freer than a closehauled starboard tack.
Yellow, outside on starboard tack, was fetching the mark and maintained a constant closehauled course from the time she entered the Zone, during the rounding, and leaving the mark. Yellow's track was one boatlength to windward of the mark.
Inside the zone Blue, tacking to starboard tack inside and to leeward of Yellow, became briefly subject to 13 before cleanly establishing her closehauled course. Blue rounded the mark inside without causing Yellow to sail above closehauled.
While leaving the mark, Blue, overlapped close to leeward, slightly leading Yellow and gaining, luffed Yellow above closehauled before Yellow's transom cleared the Zone. There was no contact between the boats.
Yellow protested Blue.
Neither boat took a penalty or alternative penalty.
Conclusion:
Blue and Yellow converged without incident while approaching the mark on opposite tacks. Blue luffed beyond head to wind and RRS 18 applied from this point. Blue tacked cleanly inside Yellow in accordance with 13 and established a leeward overlap while still in the Zone.
Blue luffed Yellow above her closehauled course while part of Yellow's hull was still inside the Zone.
Decision:
Blue, in luffing Yellow above a closehauled course before Yellow has cleared the Zone, and thus while RRS 18 still applies, breaks RRS 18.3(a) and is disqualified.
Facts Found. (These are RC sailboats -4 length zone Appendix E?) Yellow was fetching the weather mark close hauled on stbd. Blue, approaching on port, tacks below and ahead of Yellow inside the zone, becoming overlapped with yellow about 1 boat length before they pass the mark. Both boats continue close hauled on stbd past the mark. As they reach three lenghts beyond the mark, blue begins to luff and yellow responds. Yellow protests. There was no contact.
ReplyDeleteConclusions. Blue did not cause Yellow to sail above close hauled while approaching and passing the mark. Blue luffed yellow after the mark was clearly astern of both boats.
Decision. Protest dismissed. Applicable rules 18.3.c. R 11
John
I assume from the diagram that the zone was four hull lengths rather than three.
ReplyDeleteFacts Found
1. Blue and Yellow were on a beat to windward, approaching a mark to be left to port. Blue was on port tack. Yellow was fetching the mark on starboard.
2. The zone was four hull lengths.
3. Yellow passed the mark one boat length to windward.
4. Blue tacked onto starboard between Yellow and the mark. She never became clear astern of Yellow.
5. When Blue completed her tack she was half a boat width to windward of the mark and Yellow was half a boat length to windward of Blue.
6. Blue and Yellow continued on starboard tack, overlapped, half a boat length apart.
7. 3.5 hull lengths from the mark, Blue luffed above close hauled.
8. In response, Yellow luffed above close hauled, in the zone, maintaining a distance of half a boat width from Blue.
9. No boat completed a penalty.
Conclusion
Blue caused Yellow to sail above close hauled in the zone, when Blue was subject to rule 18.3. Consequently Blue broke rule 18.3.
Rules Applicable
RRS 18.3
Decision
Blue is DSQ
Firstly, I am going to ‘assume the impossible’ that is, that the protest committee is persuaded that it is more likely than not that Y was still within the four hull lengths zone when she sailed above close hauled. Even applying the last point of certainty, I cannot conceive how two boats, with the mark three to four lengths behind their backs could bring persuasive evidence to a precision of half a hull length that one was still within the zone. Nevertheless, on with the problem.
ReplyDeleteFacts Found
1. Y was close hauled on starboard at least one length above the starboard tack layline approaching a mark to be rounded to Port.
2. B tacked onto starboard, reaching a close hauled course between Y and the mark, with at least 1.5 m between B and the mark and 1.5m between B and Y, and Y did not change course.
3. B passed out of the zone and changed course to windward.
4. Y changed course to windward to keep clear of B and was forced to sail above close hauled while still in the zone.
Conclusion
B, subject to rule 13 in the zone while Y was fetching the mark, caused Y to sail above close hauled to avoid her while Y was still in the zone. B broke rule 18.3(a).
Decision
B is disqualified.
@OHara
ReplyDeleteThere are no PC hearings on rules of part 2 in a Match or Team race....
I'm mostly okay with your facts although I'm missing somewhere in there that B's tack is in the zone, stated as a fact. It is implied, but not 'found'
Also 'no need to avoid' is not a fact but already a conclusion.
In your conclusion, please use the wording as written in the rules. For example: 'were required to leave to port' should be something like: 'were both required to leave on the same side'
Decision:
Protest upheld. Blue DSQ in race (X)
@ Philip
ReplyDeleteFor you I would also suggest to try to stick more to the terminology of the rules. A boat does not stay 'clean' it 'keeps clear'
A boat cannot luff beyond head to wind. It passes head to wind... wording like that.
Be careful what you write in your conclusions. One sentence should suffice.
And 18 is a very complicated rule, be more specific i.e. rule 18.2(c) or 18.3(b)
@ball_hillary (John)
ReplyDeleteWhat is the reason that rule 18 has been switched off? There is no rule 18.3(c).
For you also in your conclusion use the wording in the rules.
@John G.
ReplyDeleteYes the zone was 4 BL. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious - but for those of you doing this as exercises for a test (national or international) let me give you a solid piece of advice: READ the problem! Everything you need to know is there. Nothing more, nothing less. Read it twice.
Your FF, C and D are very good (as always). I would add, Protest upheld.
ReplyDeleteThe first point you raise is very interesting. It is something that you would encounter in the room, not so much in a test situation. Finding out what has happened, finding the 'truth' is a separate technique. I'm planning to do a couple of post on that subject in the future.
Things like question technique, body language, intimidation - confrontation versus building trust and comfort....
Jos - Forgive me if I misread your last sentence regarding "confrontation versus building trust and comfort".
ReplyDeleteI had to deal with a situation where I felt there was intentional collision, with me (windward and stbd) steering away and overlapped boat (also stbd) managing to swing around and tag me.
There was a long discussion regarding what I called "time to respond". It got tangled when the mod wrote "time isn't used in regulations; they use room and opportunity" though he himself had used "time" in previous rulings.
I don't mean to rehash that, but to bring up this: what I find a very nice focus on the language of intention ... http://www.ukhalsey.com/blog/post/Dialing-Up-and-Dialing-Down-in-Team-Racing.aspx
^5
I'll have a look at your link.
Delete